Hi, Folks-
Just a clarification about what the W3C Process Document [1] says about
one point of this debate...
Maciej Stachowiak wrote (on 11/18/09 1:58 AM):
> Furthermore, stopping work would do practical harm:
>
> - A WG Note would stop work without producing a test suite, thus harming
> interoperability.
> - A WG Note would leave us with no clear process to fix problems found
> in the spec in the course of implementation.
> - A WG Note is harder to "resurrect" in case of new info than a stalled
> Working Draft; it would require essentially a new FPWD.
> - It's likely that Web Database implementors will at some point want to
> add features, and a WG Note does not provide a suitable path for doing
> that.
I don't see any evidence of that in the Process Document, which actually
places few requirements on Working Group Notes (the references in this
email are pretty exhaustive in what the PD has to say). A Note is
defined thus [2]:
[[
Working Group Note
A Working Group Note is published by a chartered Working Group to
indicate that work has ended on a particular topic. A Working Group MAY
publish a Working Group Note with or without its prior publication as a
Working Draft.
]]
In fact, this group (or more precisely, the WebAPI WG, one of this
group's parents) took DOM3 Events directly from WG Note [3] back to
Working Draft [4] without going to FPWD (after almost 3 years and a
change of WGs). This practice seems to be supported explicitly [5] by
the PD, regarding possible next steps for a Note:
[[
Work on a technical report MAY cease at any time. When a Working Group
completes its work on a technical report, it publishes it either as a
Recommendation or a Working Group Note.
...
Possible next steps:
* End state: A technical report MAY remain a Working Group Note
indefinitely
* Otherwise: A Working Group MAY resume work on the technical report
as a Working Draft
]]
If anything, a strict examination of the W3C Process Document would seem
to support Nikunj's position, if the WG is not going to be actively
editing the document. The Heartbeat Requirement clause [6] says,
[[
It is important that a Working Group keep the Membership and public
informed of its activity and progress. To this end, each Working Group
SHOULD publish in the W3C technical reports index a new draft of each
active technical report at least once every three months.
...
The heartbeat requirement stops when the document becomes a
Recommendation (or a Working Group Note).
]]
So, technically, we should be more rigorous about publishing each spec
every 3 months; in practice, we publish when a spec has been updated
significantly, which may be a defensible policy (in my personal opinion,
not speaking as the Team Contact).
But if the WebDatabase spec is going to lie fallow for many months or
years, with no active editor, nor clear plans to update it, nor notion
of material that may be added to it (such as deciding on a SQL dialect),
then that is a different matter than specs that are being actively
worked on by unfortunately busy people who get to it when they can and
publish in good faith when the spec has been changed.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to push the group one way or the other
here, just presenting what strict adherence to the Process Document
would dictate.
I admit to being concerned that the "landscape" of local
storage/caching/client-side databases/structured data seems rather
cluttered at this moment, and would welcome some clarity that indicates
to developers what they should be paying attention to, and I do think
that "Web Database" may add unnecessarily to the confusion, amplified by
having a name so generic.
However, the general tenor of the group seems to be against that. Is
this because someone has stepped up to be editor, or because there is
some anticipation that more material (in addition to any caveats as
mentioned by Adrian and Chaals) will be added to the spec in the next 6
months or so? Or is it simply that folks were fuzzy on what the role of
a WG Note is, and what it would mean for future options for the group?
I am personally of the opinion that publishing the spec as a WG Note
until new information comes to light may be a very reasonable course of
action, which may help shed a small bit of clarity in the wider
community, and does not in any way prevent this group from taking it up
again later (even 6 months or so down the line). Publishing as a WG
Note would be no more fuss than publishing as an updated WD.
But by the same token, if there is intent to update it anytime in the
next few months, particularly based on implementation experience, then I
think it would be premature to publish it as a WG Note, even if that may
ultimately end up as the course of action the WG decides upon. (Note
that unless the spec does settle on a SQL dialect, I suspect it would be
unlikely to be approved for transition to CR.)
For the record, please be aware that any IP commitments associated with
Web Database will not be binding unless it progresses to Recommendation
(not that I know of any).
[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#q75
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/NOTE-DOM-Level-3-Events-20031107/
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-DOM-Level-3-Events-20060413/
[5] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#tr-end
[6] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#three-month-rule
Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs